US News & World Report: Bush Bashing Fizzles.......

[TC4]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20050727/ts_usnews/bushbashingfizzles&printer=1;_ylt=AvYR1pRKZ8VKDi059VcUX3eSl7MF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Bush Bashing Fizzles

By Michael Barone

Wed Jul 27, 4:59 PM ET

This summer, one big story is replaced by another--the London bombings July 7, the speculation that Karl Rove illegally named a covert CIA agent, the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, more London bombings last week. But beneath the hubbub, we can see the playing out of another, less reported story: the collapse of the attempts by liberal Democrats and their sympathizers in the mainstream media--the New York Times, etc., etc.--to delegitimize yet another Republican administration.

This project has been ongoing for more than 30 years. Richard Nixon, by obstructing investigation of the Watergate burglary, unwittingly colluded in the successful attempt to besmirch his administration. Less than two years after carrying 49 states, he was compelled to resign. The attempt to delegitimize the Reagan administration seemed at the time reasonably successful. Reagan was widely dismissed as a lightweight ideologue, and the rejection of his nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 contributed to the impression that his years in office were, to take the title of a book by a first-rate journalist, "the Reagan detour." As time went on, as the Berlin Wall fell and Bill Clinton proclaimed that the era of big government was over, it became clear that Reagan was a successful transformational president--something the mainstream media grudgingly admitted when he died in 2004 after a decade out of public view.

You think they'd learn. But for the past five years, the same folks have been trying to undermine the presidency of George W. Bush. The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was denounced as an outrage, and Democrats noted, accurately, that Bush did not win a plurality of the popular vote in 2000. The nation rallied to his support after September 11, but Democrats held up his judicial and other nominations even if they had to violate Senate tradition to do so. Coverage of Bush during the 2004 campaign was heavily negative; for months the mainstream media mostly ignored the swift boat vets' charges against John Kerry and broadcast accusations against Bush based on forged documents eight weeks before the election. News of economic recovery in 2003 and 2004 was pitched far more negatively than it had been when Bill Clinton was president in 1995 and 1996.

Now the unsupported charges that "Bush lied" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have been rekindled via criticism of Karl Rove. A key witness for the Democrats and mainstream media was former diplomat Joseph Wilson. Unfortunately for his advocates, he turned out to be a liar. A year after his famous article appeared in the New York Times in July 2003 accusing Bush of "twisting" intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a bipartisan report, concluded that Wilson lied when he said his wife had nothing to do with his dispatch to Niger and Chairman Pat Roberts said that his report bolstered rather than refuted the case that Saddam Hussein's Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa. So despite the continuing credulousness of much of the press, it appears inconceivable at this point that Karl Rove will be charged with violating the law prohibiting disclosure of the names of undercover agents. The case against Rove--ballyhooed by recent Time and Newsweek cover stories that paid little heed to the discrediting of Wilson--seems likely to end not with a bang but a whimper.

Court intrigue. So, too, with the political left's determination to defeat Bush's first nominee to the Supreme Court. Democrats, with much help from the press, argued successfully in 1987 that Robert Bork was out of the mainstream and in 1991 brought up spectacular charges that cast a pall on Justice Clarence Thomas. They seem almost certain not to have such success against the obviously highly qualified John Roberts. They may try to argue that Roberts is "out of the mainstream." But the vote on Roberts's nomination to the appeals court was 14 to 3 in the judiciary committee. Who is in the mainstream now?

The bombings and attempted bombings in London have brought home to the American public that we face implacable enemies unwilling to be appeased by even the most emollient diplomacy. Yet, mainstream media coverage of Iraq has been mostly negative. But mainstream media no longer have a monopoly; Americans have other sources in talk radio, Fox News, and the blogosphere. Bush's presidency is still regarded as illegitimate by perhaps 20 percent of the electorate. But among the rest, the attempt to delegitimize him seems to be collapsing.

[chomerics]

Ah yes, the "unbiased" piece from a conservative writer with such quips like this. . .

Now the unsupported charges that "Bush lied" about weapons of mass destruction.

Actually, they have been substantiated, and there is now evidence that he did in fact lie to the American people.

This article is nothing more then a propaganda piece written to cloud peoples judgement. Barone has appeared on Fox News, and the McGloughlin Group as the conservative pundit, just so everyone knows, and he has long been a conservative backer.

This is akin to posting an article written by Nancy Pilosi and looking for discussion

But then again, I guess this is just another example of conservative bias in the news. :doh:

[@DCGoldPants]

I would think that if this article needed to be written. Then that's proof enough that nothing is fizzling at this point.

Not to say that the bashing is all earned or unearned.... but it most surely isn't fizzling.

[footballhenry]

not again chom. how are the accusations of Bush lying substantiated??? seriously, weve been through this over and over.

[Baculus]

The funny thing is, when the Downing Street Memo and subsequent information was released, it was seen as "old news." It isn't old news, it is current news. The Memo and it's related documents - UK government verified - demonstrates the very real possibility of deception that was being purveyed by the Bush administration. They were clearly not honest with the American public.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

This is such a burning issue that over a 100 members of the house, led by Rep. John Conyers (D), are demanding a response to the contents of this document. Which the documents merely affirms what some had been writing and stating - that Iraq was already a target much earlier then claimed by the Bush administration.

Besides this issue, both Nixon and Reagan had scandals, Watergate, Contra/Irangate, among others, so it didn't take much for anyone to try "taking them down." They created it themselves, or at least elements of their administration (including "I am out of the loop" Bush I) created them. Also, Bush creates his own problems, with a less-then-forthright approach to some of his initiatives and programs. The Bush administration, to be blunt, isn't always the most directly honest when it comes to issues. (Incidentally, Clinton, between Republican administrations, wasn't that honest either, but he had his own political opposition that were trying to take him down.)

Personally, I am not sure if a sizable potion of the population that do not care for Bush are going to change their tune any time soon, especially as the Iraq war continues. And especially if further revealing details and information, such as the Downing Street Memo, is released.

[Guest Gichin13]

That is a pretty weakly written article.

I think the Dems have been over the top with the Bush lying/impeachment talk.

I also think it appears pretty clear that Bush and his gang cooked the books on the intelligence to fit the facts they wanted to go in to Iraq. I believe a certain level of criticism of this administration is completely warranted, but on some levels it has been pretty hysterical on the left and that has washed out much of the legitimate critique.

This project has been ongoing for more than 30 years. Richard Nixon, by obstructing investigation of the Watergate burglary, unwittingly colluded in the successful attempt to besmirch his administration. Less than two years after carrying 49 states, he was compelled to resign.

So apparently criticizing Nixon is improper according to this writer? He and Ben Stein should meet for lunch in the Nixon Apologists Society. Sure, Chinese relations were wonderful, but using the governmental police power to spy on your political rivals, break in to the DNC offices, et c really is pretty damn abusive in my book. The traditional line of "he didn't do anything that everyone else didn't also do, he just got caught" is about the weakest reply to institutional corruption I have ever seen.

The attempt to delegitimize the Reagan administration seemed at the time reasonably successful. Reagan was widely dismissed as a lightweight ideologue, and the rejection of his nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 contributed to the impression that his years in office were, to take the title of a book by a first-rate journalist, "the Reagan detour." As time went on, as the Berlin Wall fell and Bill Clinton proclaimed that the era of big government was over, it became clear that Reagan was a successful transformational president--something the mainstream media grudgingly admitted when he died in 2004 after a decade out of public view.

I have a positive/negative thing with Reagan. I think he was the strongest President of my adult life, and I voted for him. I think the arms race, coupled with taking on the USSR frontally, helped grind them into the turf and that was a good thing.

The banana republic wars were not. Iran/Contra was a horrible stupid mistake, regardless of how deeply Ollie wrapped himself in the flag. We were negotiating with terrorists, we were tied up into illegal weapons and drug sales. How is that good?

Ultimately, Reagan was a great communicator, but I question how much he was running the show. In hindsight, the mental deterioration may have already begun (anyone watch his trial testimony on Iran/Contra?). I have a hard time taking anyone who starred with a monkey too seriously, but in terms of results, he far outweighs LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Bush I, Clinton or Bush II in my book. I would also agree he ushered in a wave of political transformation, particularly in the south, that is leaving echoes into our current political landscape.

You think they'd learn. But for the past five years, the same folks have been trying to undermine the presidency of George W. Bush. The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was denounced as an outrage, and Democrats noted, accurately, that Bush did not win a plurality of the popular vote in 2000. The nation rallied to his support after September 11, but Democrats held up his judicial and other nominations even if they had to violate Senate tradition to do so.

Appointments have been the subject of political brawls going back to George Washington, including judicial appointments. Seems well in line with tradition to me, albeit not a real good one in my book.

Coverage of Bush during the 2004 campaign was heavily negative; for months the mainstream media mostly ignored the swift boat vets' charges against John Kerry and broadcast accusations against Bush based on forged documents eight weeks before the election. News of economic recovery in 2003 and 2004 was pitched far more negatively than it had been when Bill Clinton was president in 1995 and 1996.

I think Bush earned a lot of that negativity, but I guess that is in the eyes of the beholder. I would be far more positive about Bush if he was intellectually honest. I may think George Will is a pin head on a lot of things, but at least the guy is actually a damn conservative. He maintains intellectual rigor, honesty, and consistency. Forget about that with the current neo-con crowd, there is no arching Reaganesque principle in there.

Now the unsupported charges that "Bush lied" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have been rekindled via criticism of Karl Rove. A key witness for the Democrats and mainstream media was former diplomat Joseph Wilson. Unfortunately for his advocates, he turned out to be a liar. A year after his famous article appeared in the New York Times in July 2003 accusing Bush of "twisting" intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a bipartisan report, concluded that Wilson lied when he said his wife had nothing to do with his dispatch to Niger and Chairman Pat Roberts said that his report bolstered rather than refuted the case that Saddam Hussein's Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa.

Hmm. So many inaccuracies, so little time. My reading of the information appears pretty consistent. Wilson indicated the VP asked the CIA to look into it. The CIA thought it was a good idea. Someone above Plame's head invited Wilson, likely with a suggestion from Plame. And Wilson was clearly the single most obvious candidate given his previous diplomatic experience in both Africa and Iraq. I also thought the Senate Intelligence Committee Report was anything but bi-partisan and that many people on the committee objected to its findings and content.

Democrats, with much help from the press, argued successfully in 1987 that Robert Bork was out of the mainstream and in 1991 brought up spectacular charges that cast a pall on Justice Clarence Thomas. They seem almost certain not to have such success against the obviously highly qualified John Roberts.

Maybe, just maybe, Roberts is a better choice than Bork? Just a little more normal than completely far out?

On the original intent argument for justices, it really all seems silly to me.

Do people really want Supreme Court justices who want to return to the way the Framers thought? Do we really think that the events of 1776-2005 should not play a role in the interpretation of our laws and constitution? To me this really is a silly point of view and argument. How exactly would the Framers deal with telecommunications legislation and regulation?

Do we want a return to men wearing wigs and women not showing ankles? I understand some folks think our culture has gone too far, but come on.

Love those Framers, but these are the same folks who believed that "All men are created equal" translated to all white landed men of property are created equal, leave the non-property owners, folks of other races, and women out of the equation.

It would seems as a basic proposition that a couple hundred years of history, social and technological development really should be given some respect and weight in the interpretation of our constitution.

Don't get me wrong: I am all for conservative judges strictly interpreting legislation. As a lawyer, I think predictability is a huge bonus to the litigation process and one that is too often sorely lacking. I think expecting us to turn back the clock, however, is a pretty quixotic exercise.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Gichin13

I think Bush earned a lot of that negativity, but I guess that is in the eyes of the beholder. I would be far more positive about Bush if he was intellectually honest. I may think George Will is a pin head on a lot of things, but at least the guy is actually a damn conservative. He maintains intellectual rigor, honesty, and consistency. Forget about that with the current neo-con crowd, there is no arching Reaganesque principle in there.

Great paragraph Gitchin, and you hit the nail on the head. It isn't Bush's position that really gets the otherside pissed, it is the copmplete and utter dishonesty, Orwellian rhetoric, and outright falsehoods claimed by not only Bush, but by the whole administration that pisses people off.

How many times have we seen "mission accomplished", or heard that Iraq is going great, that the insurgence is in its last throes, that he had nothing to do with cooking the books etc. etc.

If Bush just once stood up and acted like a man, instead of acting like the silver spoon rich politicians son, maybe just maybe more people would back him.

Hmm. So many inaccuracies, so little time. My reading of the information appears pretty consistent. Wilson indicated the VP asked the CIA to look into it. The CIA thought it was a good idea. Someone above Plame's head invited Wilson, likely with a suggestion from Plame. And Wilson was clearly the single most obvious candidate given his previous diplomatic experience in both Africa and Iraq. I also thought the Senate Intelligence Committee Report was anything but bi-partisan and that many people on the committee objected to its findings and content.

Ture, so very true.

Maybe, just maybe, Roberts is a better choice than Bork? Just a little more normal than completely far out?

On the original intent argument for justices, it really all seems silly to me.

I personally don't have a strong dislike for Rogers, and he seems well qualified. I have nothing against appointing conservative people who are qualified for the job. I do have a problem however with appointing people who have failed utterly, but because they follow the party line (admit nothing, blame everyone else, etc) they get promoted. It is the quickest way for a government to fail.

Do people really want Supreme Court justices who want to return to the way the Framers thought? Do we really think that the events of 1776-2005 should not play a role in the interpretation of our laws and constitution? To me this really is a silly point of view and argument. How exactly would the Framers deal with telecommunications legislation and regulation?

Do we want a return to men wearing wigs and women not showing ankles? I understand some folks think our culture has gone too far, but come on.

Love those Framers, but these are the same folks who believed that "All men are created equal" translated to all white landed men of property are created equal, leave the non-property owners, folks of other races, and women out of the equation.

It would seems as a basic proposition that a couple hundred years of history, social and technological development really should be given some respect and weight in the interpretation of our constitution.

Don't get me wrong: I am all for conservative judges strictly interpreting legislation. As a lawyer, I think predictability is a huge bonus to the litigation process and one that is too often sorely lacking. I think expecting us to turn back the clock, however, is a pretty quixotic exercise. [/b]

Great Post

[Chief skin]

Bush lied and got away with it, Karl released the identity of a CIA operative and will get away with it too. No one in this administartion is held accountable for a damn thing. We have argued our point over the past 2 years and neither side is going to convince the other side. We on this board are as divided as is the country and we have junior to thank for it.

[Kilmer17]

Actually, we have vitriolic left wing loonies to thank for it.

The more people on the left cry that Bush lied, the more the people on the right will ignore you and think of you as inconsequential in the process.

[airborneskins]

I knew that it wouldn't be long before the Bush Bashing started on this thread. You showed a little restraint though.(It only took a little over 24 hrs to get going)

[Predicto]

Airborne, isn't this thread supposed to be about the subject of Bush bashing? Or am I missing something?

[airborneskins]

Originally posted by Predicto

Airborne, isn't this thread supposed to be about the subject of Bush bashing? Or am I missing something?

Apparently I forgot my sarcasm face...

[Predicto]

Gotcha. Sorry.

Sometimes it's hard to tell.

[NavyDave]

zzzzzzzzzzz

Bush is Bad, mainstream america is anti god, pro france, head in the sand when it comes to terror, pro tax hike and blame america first.

Just doing my durbin, kennedy impression

[Predicto]

Originally posted by NavyDave

zzzzzzzzzzz

Bush is Bad, mainstream america is anti god, pro france, head in the sand when it comes to terror, pro tax hike and blame america first.

Just doing my durbin, kennedy impression

Like I was saying airborne, sometimes it's hard to tell.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Actually, we have vitriolic left wing loonies to thank for it.

You were ripped for using the phrase "left wing loonies" yesterday, and I see you still never learn.

If you want to join in the discussion avoid phrases like "left wing loony", and you will not be looked at like a Rush ball washer.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by airborneskins

I knew that it wouldn't be long before the Bush Bashing started on this thread. You showed a little restraint though.(It only took a little over 24 hrs to get going)

Airborne, I don't consider this bashing.

It isn't Bush's position that really gets the otherside pissed, it is the copmplete and utter dishonesty, Orwellian rhetoric, and outright falsehoods claimed by not only Bush, but by the whole administration that pisses people off.

I consider it an explination of why Bush pisses people off so much. If you want, I can give you NUMEROUS examples of each and every instance I cited, as it was meant to be an explination of why I think the way I do, and many other Bush haters as well.

Here is the closest thing to sashing in this thread. . .

If Bush just once stood up and acted like a man, instead of acting like the silver spoon rich politicians son, maybe just maybe more people would back him.

If you don't think he acts like a silver spoon politicians son, please tell me why you think this way. I can also give you numerous counter examples of him acting this way. Being a military man, I thought you'd despise a rich person who skipped everyone on the list so he could avoid service in Vietnam, then barely shows up for guard duty.

[Baculus]

I knew that it wouldn't be long before the Bush Bashing started on this thread. You showed a little restraint though.(It only took a little over 24 hrs to get going)

What's strange about this statement is that, instead of analyzing some of the complaints of those on the so-called "Left" (apparently anyone that criticizes Bush is now a "Leftie," which is inaccurate), you immediately close ranks instead of examining these criticisms (or evidence, in some cases) for merit. And, by the way, some of these criticisms, and probing questions, do have merit if logically examined. If they didn't, then the Bush administration would be able to produce good responses that the citizenry deserve.

Criticism of the Bush administration isn't merely Bush bashing, it's holding his administration accountable for his mistakes or lack of candor. Reagan said it best when, after the Lebanon Marine barracks attack, he said that it was his responsibility and he had to bear the consquences. In short, any failures had to rest on his shoulders. This attitude seems to be completely lacking from Bush or some of his supporters. I thought conservativism, at least traditional conservatism, was about personal responsibility. Where is this frame of mind when it comes to Presidential responsibility?

And that is the anger from some citizens: The seemingly complete aversion to actually examine these issues and produce answers. After all, honesty in government is important, isn't it? And how can we trust Bush and his administration if he isn't frank with his words and actions?

[Larry]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Actually, we have vitriolic left wing loonies to thank for it.

The more people on the left cry that Bush lied, the more the people on the right will ignore you and think of you as inconsequential in the process.

You forgot "And more Downing Street Memos there are that say 'Bush Is Lieing', the more we'll say 'It's old news, everybody knows that. (And, it didn't happen.)'"

(And, "The more we keep saying it, the more people we'll find who don't see any irony in simultaniously declaring that something didn't happen, and that everybody already knows that it did.")

[Baculus]

(And, "The more we keep saying it, the more people we'll find who don't see any irony in simultaniously declaring that something didn't happen, and that everybody already knows that it did.")

Ya, I have found those responses strange. Either the Downing Street Memo, and the subsequent (and even more important) documents are either old news, they didn't happen, or both. Which is it?

[Gamebreaker]

How is that anyone who criticizes Bush's administration is automatically labeled a "left-wing loonie"....?

I'm a Moderate, and I've criticized both Republicans and Democrats, and been called both in many a discussion. The biggest problem I find with political discussions is how people tend to choose a side and automatically dismiss the other side's viewpoint. No wonder nothing of significance in improving this country is ever accomplished.

[Funkyalligator]

Even myself has been called a leftwing loonie and I am pretty far from it....just because I dislike Bush and think he as lied to the American people doesn't make me left wing, it just means I don't have a wool cap pulled over my eyes

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by Gamebreaker

How is that anyone who criticizes Bush's administration is automatically labeled a "left-wing loonie"....?

I'm a Moderate, and I've criticized both Republicans and Democrats, and been called both in many a discussion. The biggest problem I find with political discussions is how people tend to choose a side and automatically dismiss the other side's viewpoint. No wonder nothing of significance in improving this country is ever accomplished.

Agreed. It seems like that is more true now that at any other time I can remember, except for maybe as a small kid in the late 60's when things were really even more polarized than now.

[Chief skin]

His approval rating ihas fizzled unfortunately people woke up 9 months to late.

[Bang]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Actually, we have vitriolic left wing loonies to thank for it.

The more people on the left cry that Bush lied, the more the people on the right will ignore you and think of you as inconsequential in the process.

Sorry, bud, but this makes zero sense.

But, it is a microcosm of how our society works these days, and it's shameful.

It's an exercise in clear denial to even say it,,, 'the more you tell us he lied, the more we will deny it.'

Remember about 8 years or so ago when the right was on their witch hunt for Clinton? Do you remember much the same attitude coming from the left?

The more you attack, the more we will defend?

Does history teach us nothing?

Will the cycle never ever end?

Will we continue to blindly support, casually dismissing ANY claim to the opposite?

Will we continue to allow our own government to foster this deep divide among us, to the point where we will totally ignore what they do?

If you neighbor told you your wife was having an affair while you were at work, would you blindly dismiss it, or would you at least ask yourself about it?

Forget the war.. the war is neccessary. What about the rest of the stuff? Why is he giving GIGANTIC tax breaks to oil companies that are literally making BILLIONS in pure profit every QUARTER? Why no questions over that? Why not even a peep about it? It's not right, and no matter what side of the ideaology you drop on, that STILL isn't right, especially when you see our pump prices. We're being thoroughly gouged. Shortages cause prices to rise, sure, but in this case, it has also caused unbelievable profits for the major oil companies. MAJOR HUGE profits.

Doesn't it at least p!ss you off to learn how much in pure profit these companies make, and then find out that our new 'energy policy" is nothing more than a HUGE HUGE tax break for them?

I mean, we DO have a war to pay for, don't we? Why are we giving BILLIONS in tax breaks to the richest companies in America?

Why not do what is spoken about, and give tax breaks to industries looking for new sources of energy,, like Nuclear facilities, or >gasp< research into wind power. Why give tax breaks to a DYING INDUSTRY that is using it's death throes to rape every single one of us? Why not use some of those BILLIONS in tax breaks the oil companies received, and use it to look for the sources to get us off the teat of the middle east? Should we continue to pretend that oil is just going to be there forever?

These are the kind of misleading things that get my goat. I listen to GW stand up and talk about seeking out new forms of energy, then when they pass their 'energy bill" absolutely none of what he said we'd do is done. In fact, it's just the opposite,, tax breaks for big oil, higher prices for us, and no relief in sight.

Blind trust is NEVER EVER rewarded properly. It is almost ALWAYS abused.

Except by dogs. Dogs are great, aren't they?

I don't have any problem with supporting an ideal, and defending an ideal, but we must be vigilant. We must not just blindly support anyone who espouses the ideal. We must demand truth from them, we must demand virtue from them. And if get anything less, we MUST demand explanations from them, and they SHOULD be compelled to give them.

Unfortunately, the power in this country is no longer residing within the people, and hasn't for quite some time.

We ARE lied to, every single day. The President lies. The congress lies. the left lies, and the right lies. They do it because NO ONE STOPS THEM. Because we've been manipulated to a point where we choose up right and left sides in EVERYTHING, and we live in utter blind absolutes.

NO ONE IS WILLING TO LISTEN TO ANYONE ANYMORE, NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY.

Instead, we blindly follow the OBVIOUS propaganda that is fed to us every day. If it weren't so serious, it would be funny to see how these so called news agencies transparently pretend to offer objective news. It's funny to see how conservatives NEVER question the authenticity of the right's propaganda, but hammer that of the left.. and vice versa.

One time, everyone turn off their political ears, and just listen to them talk. There is no debate over issues, there is no merit given to the opposing viewpoint EVER. Compromise and understanding are DEAD.

Now, if one side doesn't agree, they simply mock the other side like children do. They call names, they gang up. They don't engage in debate, they engage in argument, and deflect away from the real issues at hand when it appears they may be able to embarrass the person who said something they don't agree with, no matter HOW much merit it may have.

(It happens here almost every day, and lots of you are guilty of it, on both sides of the fence. I know I've wagged my finger at folks on both sides. I try to be an equal opportunity nag:))

I truly believe that if the president told Fox news that a hershey bar was made out of cement, I truly believe their network would mock ANYONE who said otherwise. If CNN was told by the president that the herhsey bar was delicious chocolate, they'd try to convince themselves it was cement... hiring 'experts' to come in and explain to us how this so called "chocolate" is really an amalgam of waxes and flavorings, and not actually chocolate...

Often the other side does have a point, and I say that to both cons and libs. I think it would be in EVERYONE's best interest if we all learned to LISTEN once in a while.

It is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to break this cycle. It's our job to reverse this trend. It is our job to demand accountability, respectability, and TRUTH from our leaders, and more importantly, from OURSELVES.

~Bang